Tw: forced eye contact, restraint & other abusive 'treatment' descriptions
I can remember the last few times I made true eye contact, as clear as a snapshot.
-I was too distressed to make words happen and no one around knew sign. Eyes wildly snapped from person to person, looking for someone who could read my mind.
-I was in the ER getting stitches on my finger, which I had accidentally locked in a car door. I told them to not tell me when they were sticking me with the needles. They told me. Eyes flew to those of the person with me.
-One of those folks who thinks boundaries don't apply to him was getting too close and too cozy on the bus. Again, probing for someone who could recognize my distress.
-Someone was threatening violence in my direction at a thing I used to do, and I was meeting with one of the folks who had authority. His words on the experience are "please stop trying to set me on fire with your mind."
The elements of these scenarios are the same. Something is happening. I do not like it. I do not like it at all, and want it to stop immediately. Yelling and swearing has not worked. I can't hit it or kick it or pretend it doesn't exist. Those strategies have failed or have a 99.9999% chance of failing based on pattern data from years of experiences.
But eye contact makes them stop doing the unpleasant thing.
This doesn't make sense, does it? You've heard that eye contact is about sharing and social referencing and subtle messages and cues being sent among communicative partners. That's not what this is at all! This is the sledgehammer. This is the safeword, if you will, the "this stops now it has to it has to it has to make it stop nownownownownow no matter what".
Where did I get this idea? Therapy. That's where.
When I was a very small little child, the first thing they tried to get me to do was "look at me". Now, if I was a small child now they'd be still coercing looking at them. The new and improved way of forcing eye contact is to hold a desirable item between the adult's eyes and then give it to the small child when they look at it. This is still gross.
Back in my day, however, it was all out war. They would grab your face, they'd hold your hands down, they'd pretty much sit on you. It was a full out wrestling match until you submitted and looked them in the eye. Then, they immediately stopped. They immediately let go of your face or your hands or stopped sitting on your or stopped holding your shoulders so hard that the bones ground or what have you.
I was small. Hitting didn't work (I tried). Kicking was a no. Headbutting only worked once, biting was iffy. Covering my face got my hands dragged into my lap and held there. Dumping the chair and running was only a few seconds reprieve and led to the least comfortable hold ever. They had no compunctions about prying my eyes open when I squeezed them shut as tight as I could. No boundary violations were out of bounds. The only way to make the awful stop was to look in their eyes.
Reality land does not, in fact work that way. Eye contact is not the way to make things stop. People who know me understand that it means "something that is happening needs to not be happening right. now." Most people don't know that. People who only sort of know me can grasp that it's bad (see: "stop trying to set me on fire with your mind") but they don't know what it means. Strangers take eye contact to mean the opposite of what it does.
My brain knows that for most people a straight in the eyes stare is not the signal for "something needs to stop right. now." but it isn't that easy. One of the deepest conditioned things I have is "eye contact is giving in. If you do that, the bad will stop." This is irrational and untrue and the world doesn't work that way. It's deep, though, as the first and most consistent of the wrestling matches I had with adults as a small child.
This isn't what they thought they were teaching me. They claimed to be teaching me all sorts of things about eye contact. They didn't though. They wrestled me to the ground over and over to grind a lie into my head.
Showing posts with label ableism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ableism. Show all posts
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Awareness kills.
Yesterday they released the news of another child killed because of the ableism that the rhetoric of tragedy fosters.
Daniel Corby, age 4, was drowned by his mother in San Diego. Already people, including the media, are leaping to say that autism is so hard, no wonder she went over the edge. No. No. No. You don't say that. There is no excuse to kill people.
And this is what awareness does. The dominant narrative is that of hopelessness. The dominant narrative is of isolation and despair. The dominant narrative is that we are perpetual burdens, never to grow or be anything but 100% dependent. The dominant narrative is of tragically unhappy lives.
Awareness is wrong. We are, on the whole, not unhappy. We do not need the terror around how many of us there are. We do not benefit in any way from information that makes us sound like scary, alien beings. And we do not benefit from being seen as less than human, as things to be endured rather than people to be embrace.
Daniel could have had any of a number of futures. Now he has none of them. This is unacceptable.
Stop killing us.
Daniel Corby, age 4, was drowned by his mother in San Diego. Already people, including the media, are leaping to say that autism is so hard, no wonder she went over the edge. No. No. No. You don't say that. There is no excuse to kill people.
And this is what awareness does. The dominant narrative is that of hopelessness. The dominant narrative is of isolation and despair. The dominant narrative is that we are perpetual burdens, never to grow or be anything but 100% dependent. The dominant narrative is of tragically unhappy lives.
Awareness is wrong. We are, on the whole, not unhappy. We do not need the terror around how many of us there are. We do not benefit in any way from information that makes us sound like scary, alien beings. And we do not benefit from being seen as less than human, as things to be endured rather than people to be embrace.
Daniel could have had any of a number of futures. Now he has none of them. This is unacceptable.
Stop killing us.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Skepticism's Ableism Problem
I have a new drinking game for reading the comments on Freethought Blogs. All of them. Bet you can figure out what it is.
You bet your ass that if a post is about asinine behavior, someone in the comments will internet-diagnose the person in question with Aspergers/an ASD. Because, of course, all autistics & Aspies et cetera behave so out-of-the-norm asshattedly as to come to the attention of fairly widely read bloggers. And obviously, autism is the only thing that could possibly make someone such an asshat.
Except no.
I mostly see this, actually, in the context of misogynist deed being committed, someone says "well duh, Aspie dude" or something to that effect. The dude in question has never in any of these threads been listed as autistic. Ever. Except by NT onlookers who are looking for a reason to feel superior-"I'm not a misogynist" isn't enough, they've got to exert their NT privilege too!
Fun fact, y'all. We're skeptics too. And as an autistic woman, I cannot tell in which way I feel less welcome in the community. The sexism is awful, and the way you try to blame it on people with my fucking neurology is not acceptable.
Now excuse me, I need to go do a shot for each instance of "dumbass" and "stupid" and a whole bottle for the "asshole=autism" thing.
Aren't you an enlightened bunch?
Apparently not.
You bet your ass that if a post is about asinine behavior, someone in the comments will internet-diagnose the person in question with Aspergers/an ASD. Because, of course, all autistics & Aspies et cetera behave so out-of-the-norm asshattedly as to come to the attention of fairly widely read bloggers. And obviously, autism is the only thing that could possibly make someone such an asshat.
Except no.
I mostly see this, actually, in the context of misogynist deed being committed, someone says "well duh, Aspie dude" or something to that effect. The dude in question has never in any of these threads been listed as autistic. Ever. Except by NT onlookers who are looking for a reason to feel superior-"I'm not a misogynist" isn't enough, they've got to exert their NT privilege too!
Fun fact, y'all. We're skeptics too. And as an autistic woman, I cannot tell in which way I feel less welcome in the community. The sexism is awful, and the way you try to blame it on people with my fucking neurology is not acceptable.
Now excuse me, I need to go do a shot for each instance of "dumbass" and "stupid" and a whole bottle for the "asshole=autism" thing.
Aren't you an enlightened bunch?
Apparently not.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Shaking the unshakeable
For some reason people think I'm a lot more confident than I am. I'm not. I live with a lot of anxiety and near crippling self doubt. However, I firmly believe that my fights are worth fighting.
Let me have that.
There's a systemic process that people use to break this kind of thing, to convince people that what they know and see and perceive and feel isn't real or accurate.
It's called gaslighting, and it's abuse.
Every time you tell someone that they are too sensitive, they are overreacting, they didn't mean it that way, you are gaslighting. And that is abuse.
Every time you tell someone with a disability that they aren't a really real disabled person, you are gaslighting, and that's abuse.
Every time you try to convince someone with a disability that they are too high functioning to talk accurately about that disability, you are gaslighting. That's abuse.
Every time you tell someone that enforcing their access needs is unreasonable, you are gaslighting. That's abuse.
Every time you tell someone that defending themselves against others hurting them is 'abusive', you are gaslighting. And that is abuse.
Every time you tell someone that they have to understand why someone did or said something hurtful, they didn't mean it about them, you are gaslighting. That's abuse.
When you tell someone on the receiving end of prejudice or injustice that they're imagining it, you are gaslighting. That is abuse.
You aren't the first person who thought to tell us that we're oversensitive or being unreasonable with our needs or that our perceptions are wrong or whatever. Gaslighting is common.
And it is abuse.
Trying to shake someone's sense that what they know, see, and think is true, trying to convince them they're just making shit up? Just so you don't have to listen to them? Just to break them down?
That is abuse. It is disgusting. It is an absolutely hateful thing to do to anyone. It's also a favorite tactic of all sorts of shitty people. And make no mistake, if you do this sort of thing you are a shitty person.
When you engage in this kind of thing, the planting and cultivating of self doubt, it'll work for a while. It won't get me to shut up though. It'll make me anxious as I try to figure out what is real and what is made up and who made it up and why and what I did wrong to make them think that was ok.
And I know the answer is it isn't ok. It is gaslighting. Gaslighting is abuse. But it is sneaky and it leaves marks, marks that no one can see.
Growing someone else's self doubt so that you don't have to change your thinking or your action?
That shit's abuse. You should know better. Stop doing it.
Let me have that.
There's a systemic process that people use to break this kind of thing, to convince people that what they know and see and perceive and feel isn't real or accurate.
It's called gaslighting, and it's abuse.
Every time you tell someone that they are too sensitive, they are overreacting, they didn't mean it that way, you are gaslighting. And that is abuse.
Every time you tell someone with a disability that they aren't a really real disabled person, you are gaslighting, and that's abuse.
Every time you try to convince someone with a disability that they are too high functioning to talk accurately about that disability, you are gaslighting. That's abuse.
Every time you tell someone that enforcing their access needs is unreasonable, you are gaslighting. That's abuse.
Every time you tell someone that defending themselves against others hurting them is 'abusive', you are gaslighting. And that is abuse.
Every time you tell someone that they have to understand why someone did or said something hurtful, they didn't mean it about them, you are gaslighting. That's abuse.
When you tell someone on the receiving end of prejudice or injustice that they're imagining it, you are gaslighting. That is abuse.
You aren't the first person who thought to tell us that we're oversensitive or being unreasonable with our needs or that our perceptions are wrong or whatever. Gaslighting is common.
And it is abuse.
Trying to shake someone's sense that what they know, see, and think is true, trying to convince them they're just making shit up? Just so you don't have to listen to them? Just to break them down?
That is abuse. It is disgusting. It is an absolutely hateful thing to do to anyone. It's also a favorite tactic of all sorts of shitty people. And make no mistake, if you do this sort of thing you are a shitty person.
When you engage in this kind of thing, the planting and cultivating of self doubt, it'll work for a while. It won't get me to shut up though. It'll make me anxious as I try to figure out what is real and what is made up and who made it up and why and what I did wrong to make them think that was ok.
And I know the answer is it isn't ok. It is gaslighting. Gaslighting is abuse. But it is sneaky and it leaves marks, marks that no one can see.
Growing someone else's self doubt so that you don't have to change your thinking or your action?
That shit's abuse. You should know better. Stop doing it.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
You're disabled & demand access, GTFO.
This past week I wrote two blog posts about my increasing frustration with the events of Portland swing dance. This first one was basically an explanation of...why I won't pay upward of $100 to again be assaulted by a photographer & be told that the event organizers won't do anything about it. I know, I am so damn unreasonable.
This one, featuring a comment stuck in the spam trap & a photo of inadequate passive aggressive signage was a followup to both that and a "seriously? Does anyone think this sign is remotely approaching acceptable?" It's the size of a damn potholder!
Apparently someone doesn't like getting criticized on the internet, since I got an email from Mindy Hazeltine telling me that I may not go to Stumptown dance events anymore, for reasons that amount to "you are disabled and willing to make people uncomfortable to ensure your access."
That's right.
The kids who throw each other & almost drop each other on their heads? They're cool. The guy who regularly throws his follows into other couples & grinds all on new ladies? Oh, he's fine too. The retired military man who takes photos up shirts & down skirts and who has gotten into physical altercations on the dance floor? Yeah, he's all good too, just like the assaulty Evrim.
But oh man, be epileptic & insist on your access? GTFO! EMOTIONAL ABUSE! Make it much harder to switch out the good sign for the bad sign by removing it so the only choice is the good sign? OMG LARCENY. When Stumptown Dance promises to make an announcement & to talk to flashing people, and then fails, what am I supposed to do? Oh right. Be niiiiiiiice. Because it's totally expected to be niiiiiiiiiiice to people who are hurting you rightthissecond.
I wrote about that, actually. Over a year ago. I am not required to be nice. You are, however, required to not kill me. I know, I know, it makes you feel bad to be told, not asked, that you shouldn't kill me. I'm looking for a fuck to give, can't find one. Not feeling bad is not a right. Not being killed is. I wrote about this derailment, argument from tone in lateish 2011. Cuz "you were mean in telling me to not kill you" is a spurious argument, and people need to stop making it. As I wrote as one of the very first posts here, I shouldn't have to beg.
I briefly mentioned the whole flash photography issue in my BADD 2011 post, too. Being a one person anti strobe league for this long? It's hard. You get tired. You get real tired when people are like "you are inconvenient. Pay me to hurt you, or go away. I won't do the legally required accommodations because I don't want to!
A long time ago I wrote a post, Epilepsy Is, again inspired by the ableist treatment at Stumptown Dance events and the assaults by Mr Icoz and the resulting lack of acceptable resolution by Portland Lindy Society. One of the first posts on this blog was also about dance, and the ableism I've been fighting since day 1: Why This is a Battle Worth Fighting.
This is a long-standing problematic pattern. It doesn't matter if you don't find it 'convenient', or if you believe epilepsy is really demons, or whatever. The fact of the matter is there is a law, and excluding someone for insisting the law is followed rather than excluding those who will not keep it, that is a special kind of bigoted.
This one, featuring a comment stuck in the spam trap & a photo of inadequate passive aggressive signage was a followup to both that and a "seriously? Does anyone think this sign is remotely approaching acceptable?" It's the size of a damn potholder!
Apparently someone doesn't like getting criticized on the internet, since I got an email from Mindy Hazeltine telling me that I may not go to Stumptown dance events anymore, for reasons that amount to "you are disabled and willing to make people uncomfortable to ensure your access."
That's right.
The kids who throw each other & almost drop each other on their heads? They're cool. The guy who regularly throws his follows into other couples & grinds all on new ladies? Oh, he's fine too. The retired military man who takes photos up shirts & down skirts and who has gotten into physical altercations on the dance floor? Yeah, he's all good too, just like the assaulty Evrim.
But oh man, be epileptic & insist on your access? GTFO! EMOTIONAL ABUSE! Make it much harder to switch out the good sign for the bad sign by removing it so the only choice is the good sign? OMG LARCENY. When Stumptown Dance promises to make an announcement & to talk to flashing people, and then fails, what am I supposed to do? Oh right. Be niiiiiiiice. Because it's totally expected to be niiiiiiiiiiice to people who are hurting you rightthissecond.
I wrote about that, actually. Over a year ago. I am not required to be nice. You are, however, required to not kill me. I know, I know, it makes you feel bad to be told, not asked, that you shouldn't kill me. I'm looking for a fuck to give, can't find one. Not feeling bad is not a right. Not being killed is. I wrote about this derailment, argument from tone in lateish 2011. Cuz "you were mean in telling me to not kill you" is a spurious argument, and people need to stop making it. As I wrote as one of the very first posts here, I shouldn't have to beg.
I briefly mentioned the whole flash photography issue in my BADD 2011 post, too. Being a one person anti strobe league for this long? It's hard. You get tired. You get real tired when people are like "you are inconvenient. Pay me to hurt you, or go away. I won't do the legally required accommodations because I don't want to!
A long time ago I wrote a post, Epilepsy Is, again inspired by the ableist treatment at Stumptown Dance events and the assaults by Mr Icoz and the resulting lack of acceptable resolution by Portland Lindy Society. One of the first posts on this blog was also about dance, and the ableism I've been fighting since day 1: Why This is a Battle Worth Fighting.
This is a long-standing problematic pattern. It doesn't matter if you don't find it 'convenient', or if you believe epilepsy is really demons, or whatever. The fact of the matter is there is a law, and excluding someone for insisting the law is followed rather than excluding those who will not keep it, that is a special kind of bigoted.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
More Toxic Lessons Learned
A common theme of my youth was that I was worth less if I didn't have friends and a social life. Another prominent idea was that no matter what, if people didn't like me, it was my fault and my responsibility to change that. Having an opinion on what I'd like or not like to do or expressing discomfort with someone or something was being "bossy" or "too demanding" or "high maintenance", and none of these things are ok to be.
So I was this kid who was told that social approval defined my worth, and who was told that if I in any way challenged what my social peers decided to do I was screwing that up. Basically the message I got, both directly and indirectly, was that people were doing me a favor by tolerating my presence at all, so I should shut the hell up and be grateful and go along with whatever.
Ask me if I think my worth is determined by social approval and I'll say hell no, because it isn't and never was. If people don't like me is it my fault? Well, maybe, but that's their loss now isn't it?
But some of that toxic stuff internalized. I know in my head that people aren't doing me a favor hanging out with me, but that doesn't mean I really know it. I rarely feel comfortable asking for a plan change, and while I call out ableism frequently, I don't feel allowed to be as intense about it as I should if it's consistent and consistently minimized. If someone's behavior is unacceptable to me, I'm more likely to remove myself then request or demand a change, even if I know and like everyone else there. They may be my friends, but I "know" that I'm not allowed to be uncomfortable and ask to have that discomfort remedied, because I "know" they only put up with me as charity or something.
That is some messed up toxic shit, and I learned it from people who supposedly wanted the best for me. I'm an adult and I've been demanding to be seen as a whole, worthwhile, unbroken human being for nearly half my life, yet I still can't totally shake this crap. I know it's bullshit. I know I have the same right to express my needs in a social setting as everyone else.
But that knowing doesn't suck the poison out, now does it?
So I was this kid who was told that social approval defined my worth, and who was told that if I in any way challenged what my social peers decided to do I was screwing that up. Basically the message I got, both directly and indirectly, was that people were doing me a favor by tolerating my presence at all, so I should shut the hell up and be grateful and go along with whatever.
Ask me if I think my worth is determined by social approval and I'll say hell no, because it isn't and never was. If people don't like me is it my fault? Well, maybe, but that's their loss now isn't it?
But some of that toxic stuff internalized. I know in my head that people aren't doing me a favor hanging out with me, but that doesn't mean I really know it. I rarely feel comfortable asking for a plan change, and while I call out ableism frequently, I don't feel allowed to be as intense about it as I should if it's consistent and consistently minimized. If someone's behavior is unacceptable to me, I'm more likely to remove myself then request or demand a change, even if I know and like everyone else there. They may be my friends, but I "know" that I'm not allowed to be uncomfortable and ask to have that discomfort remedied, because I "know" they only put up with me as charity or something.
That is some messed up toxic shit, and I learned it from people who supposedly wanted the best for me. I'm an adult and I've been demanding to be seen as a whole, worthwhile, unbroken human being for nearly half my life, yet I still can't totally shake this crap. I know it's bullshit. I know I have the same right to express my needs in a social setting as everyone else.
But that knowing doesn't suck the poison out, now does it?
Monday, October 24, 2011
Just Don't Use That Word.
Two stories, both from this week, both illustrating how far we need to go in terms of the general public acknowledging that developmentally disabled adults out in public are, like, a thing:
Friday I went rock climbing. The facility has started charging an obscene amount for equipment rental, so my friend and I hit the discount outdoor supply (yeah, this city is so awesome that we have one of those). The guys in the climbing section were awesome-they even found a harness to fit me (I'm in a weird 'tweener size range). They were great, especially given that it was towards closing time on Friday and they were suddenly confronted with several people who all had drastically different needs.
So anyway, even though I was dropping a substantial chunk of change, I was pretty pleased. Then we go to check out & the chick at the register calls her machine r*tarded. Really? Really?! I could feel my climbing buddy wince from 10 feet away.
Don't use that word. It's ableist and unacceptable and hurtful. Oh! but it doesn't mean that! she says. It means slowed down and the meaning has changed and she grew up with foster kids and "worked with those people" and endless stream of justification.
Yeah, no, lady. And developmentally disabled people may be dropping $120 in your store right now and may be very much reconsidering that choice. The correct protocol is to apologize and STFU. And if you call me hun again I am going to slap your face off. The only thing that kept me from walking out was the knowledge that the shoes alone usually run around $200.
Then there was Sunday. As I've blogged about before, I swing dance. I have made some very good friends dancing, and it partially fills a gymnastics-shaped hole in my life. Anyway...
This very nice guy who's been dancing forever brought his nephew or cousin or something (younger male relative, in his earlyish 20s I'd guess). The kid kind of rubs me the wrong way, but whatever, right? There are lots of decent people with whom I just don't mesh, personality-wise. So this dude comes out to Denny's with us after the dance. We played this ridiculous game, Quelf the Card Game-as opposed to Quelf the board game-which involves doing silly, silly things.
Dudeguy pulls a card and says "I won't do this. It's r*t*rd*d." Don't say that word. It's bigoted. "Can I say 't*rd*d?" Well, not if you don't want me to think you're a bigot. Don't spew that hate in front of me.
Insert his not knowing what ableism is here (it's like sexism or racism, except against people with disabilities!). Insert "but I didn't know anyone here is disabled" as a justification here (because it's totes OK if no one is there to be offended, amirite?). Yeah, dude, I'm autistileptic. Nope, your claim of "borderline autism" doesn't impress me-you're still 100% ableist asshat and there's nothing that will justify that.
The guy asked if I'd be offended if he carved "fuck your god" into his arm. Non sequitur much? At this point other people are telling him to just stop, and one friend pointed out that I'm an atheist, if he was going for shock value with that one. I really don't care, it's his arm, though I do wonder what the purpose of doing that would be.
Then we get more word vomit of the R word & "well I don't know what other word to use!" Um. Bullshit. There are lots of other words and after you call me an fing r I have no reason to educate you-you are not worth my time after that. The guy just won't stop with the offensive and my friend tells him he is no longer welcome at our table-I was ready to leave at that point, but apparently I wasn't the one being an asshat?
This guy then goes around with the card that he insists playing would make him look like...well, that word (as though there is no worse fate than the late night crowd at Denny's wondering about you!) and he asks the waiter and all the stoners and other assorted riffraff that frequent Denny's at 1 AM for an adjective that describes the action on the card (please note that I absolutely without reservation consider my group part of that riffraff as well).
He. Asked. The. Waiter. To. Justify. His. Ableist. Hate. Speech.
The waiter was having none of it, fortunately, so this guy just stood at the side of our table for an hour while everyone ignored him. And on his way out he made sure to be vaguely threatening while using the same word about 10 times in one sentence.
But still. Hate speech. He fought that hard for his "right" to use hate speech.
My friends are awesome and wonderful, I must point out. There are so many similar situations where being not-ok with that word is somehow embarrassing or something, and they were pretty solidly "just stop, dude", which is just a symptom of their amazingness.
But this isn't the kind of thing that should happen at all.
In both these situations, people felt they were entitled to use words that the communities they are used against have explicitly said they disapprove of. And then when I, a member of said group, said "that isn't cool" (and according to witnesses, in the kind of way that isn't even offensive, since argument from tone is so damn popular), they felt they had a right to argue their right to use That Word, even though they'd never dream of using similar slurs, because they somehow have the right.
No.
It is not ok to use my people-yep, we're all stuck with each other-as your insult. And you sure as hell have no right to try to argue that because you know a disabled person or don't know that someone is a disabled person it's ok. Your bullshit, it is not flying here.
Friday I went rock climbing. The facility has started charging an obscene amount for equipment rental, so my friend and I hit the discount outdoor supply (yeah, this city is so awesome that we have one of those). The guys in the climbing section were awesome-they even found a harness to fit me (I'm in a weird 'tweener size range). They were great, especially given that it was towards closing time on Friday and they were suddenly confronted with several people who all had drastically different needs.
So anyway, even though I was dropping a substantial chunk of change, I was pretty pleased. Then we go to check out & the chick at the register calls her machine r*tarded. Really? Really?! I could feel my climbing buddy wince from 10 feet away.
Don't use that word. It's ableist and unacceptable and hurtful. Oh! but it doesn't mean that! she says. It means slowed down and the meaning has changed and she grew up with foster kids and "worked with those people" and endless stream of justification.
Yeah, no, lady. And developmentally disabled people may be dropping $120 in your store right now and may be very much reconsidering that choice. The correct protocol is to apologize and STFU. And if you call me hun again I am going to slap your face off. The only thing that kept me from walking out was the knowledge that the shoes alone usually run around $200.
Then there was Sunday. As I've blogged about before, I swing dance. I have made some very good friends dancing, and it partially fills a gymnastics-shaped hole in my life. Anyway...
This very nice guy who's been dancing forever brought his nephew or cousin or something (younger male relative, in his earlyish 20s I'd guess). The kid kind of rubs me the wrong way, but whatever, right? There are lots of decent people with whom I just don't mesh, personality-wise. So this dude comes out to Denny's with us after the dance. We played this ridiculous game, Quelf the Card Game-as opposed to Quelf the board game-which involves doing silly, silly things.
Dudeguy pulls a card and says "I won't do this. It's r*t*rd*d." Don't say that word. It's bigoted. "Can I say 't*rd*d?" Well, not if you don't want me to think you're a bigot. Don't spew that hate in front of me.
Insert his not knowing what ableism is here (it's like sexism or racism, except against people with disabilities!). Insert "but I didn't know anyone here is disabled" as a justification here (because it's totes OK if no one is there to be offended, amirite?). Yeah, dude, I'm autistileptic. Nope, your claim of "borderline autism" doesn't impress me-you're still 100% ableist asshat and there's nothing that will justify that.
The guy asked if I'd be offended if he carved "fuck your god" into his arm. Non sequitur much? At this point other people are telling him to just stop, and one friend pointed out that I'm an atheist, if he was going for shock value with that one. I really don't care, it's his arm, though I do wonder what the purpose of doing that would be.
Then we get more word vomit of the R word & "well I don't know what other word to use!" Um. Bullshit. There are lots of other words and after you call me an fing r I have no reason to educate you-you are not worth my time after that. The guy just won't stop with the offensive and my friend tells him he is no longer welcome at our table-I was ready to leave at that point, but apparently I wasn't the one being an asshat?
This guy then goes around with the card that he insists playing would make him look like...well, that word (as though there is no worse fate than the late night crowd at Denny's wondering about you!) and he asks the waiter and all the stoners and other assorted riffraff that frequent Denny's at 1 AM for an adjective that describes the action on the card (please note that I absolutely without reservation consider my group part of that riffraff as well).
He. Asked. The. Waiter. To. Justify. His. Ableist. Hate. Speech.
The waiter was having none of it, fortunately, so this guy just stood at the side of our table for an hour while everyone ignored him. And on his way out he made sure to be vaguely threatening while using the same word about 10 times in one sentence.
But still. Hate speech. He fought that hard for his "right" to use hate speech.
My friends are awesome and wonderful, I must point out. There are so many similar situations where being not-ok with that word is somehow embarrassing or something, and they were pretty solidly "just stop, dude", which is just a symptom of their amazingness.
But this isn't the kind of thing that should happen at all.
In both these situations, people felt they were entitled to use words that the communities they are used against have explicitly said they disapprove of. And then when I, a member of said group, said "that isn't cool" (and according to witnesses, in the kind of way that isn't even offensive, since argument from tone is so damn popular), they felt they had a right to argue their right to use That Word, even though they'd never dream of using similar slurs, because they somehow have the right.
No.
It is not ok to use my people-yep, we're all stuck with each other-as your insult. And you sure as hell have no right to try to argue that because you know a disabled person or don't know that someone is a disabled person it's ok. Your bullshit, it is not flying here.
Friday, October 14, 2011
"Just be NIIIICE": Argument from tone is BS
Let's say you're talking about social justice with someone of an oppressed class (and, for sake of argument, in that particular arena you have privilege). They're saying things you don't want to hear, uncomfortable things that hurt your feelings or make you feel bad. And let's say this person is saying what they mean, rather than sugarcoating it or apologizing.
You turn to the guaranteed conversation stopper: Argument from Tone. "You don't have to say it that way!"
Yes. Yes I do.
It's incredibly arrogant to dictate to someone how they say say things. Most of what gets brought up in these sort of discussions is difficult, it's real and it is raw. And we get told by privileged people all the time that what we have to say does not count because we are not them.
In autism discussions, this already huge problem is worse. Not only is it privilege abuse, but to tell people who are often neurologically incapable of tact and sugar coating that they have to say something 'nicely' or you won't listen to them, that is why it's so obvious that many allistic people want disabled children to talk and disabled adults to shut up.
It is utter ableist crap to say "talk like an allistic, and then we might listen to you." See, we can't talk like allistics. We have a disability that involves social and language differences! Can no one see the problem with demanding that people who tend to have language problems and social differences carefully phrase their language (which can be a battle to put together in the first place) with feelings in mind more than content?
Tone doesn't change what people are saying or why they are saying it. Those extra words, that padding, isn't going to change truth, it's just going to make privileged people feel less guilty. It isn't always about the comfort of privileged people, and it's never about feelings.
If someone is engaging with you about these issues, they probably think you have potential. Then if you pull argument from tone (by the way, it only seems to run one way. If I tell you that what you do is hurtful, no one gives 2 shits), well, there's more of our time wasted. And if you are going to insist it's my responsibility to educate you about autistic culture, don't fucking dare bringing my 'tone' into it.
In fact, just leave tone out of it altogether. Listen for content, not warm fuzzies.
You turn to the guaranteed conversation stopper: Argument from Tone. "You don't have to say it that way!"
Yes. Yes I do.
It's incredibly arrogant to dictate to someone how they say say things. Most of what gets brought up in these sort of discussions is difficult, it's real and it is raw. And we get told by privileged people all the time that what we have to say does not count because we are not them.
In autism discussions, this already huge problem is worse. Not only is it privilege abuse, but to tell people who are often neurologically incapable of tact and sugar coating that they have to say something 'nicely' or you won't listen to them, that is why it's so obvious that many allistic people want disabled children to talk and disabled adults to shut up.
It is utter ableist crap to say "talk like an allistic, and then we might listen to you." See, we can't talk like allistics. We have a disability that involves social and language differences! Can no one see the problem with demanding that people who tend to have language problems and social differences carefully phrase their language (which can be a battle to put together in the first place) with feelings in mind more than content?
Tone doesn't change what people are saying or why they are saying it. Those extra words, that padding, isn't going to change truth, it's just going to make privileged people feel less guilty. It isn't always about the comfort of privileged people, and it's never about feelings.
If someone is engaging with you about these issues, they probably think you have potential. Then if you pull argument from tone (by the way, it only seems to run one way. If I tell you that what you do is hurtful, no one gives 2 shits), well, there's more of our time wasted. And if you are going to insist it's my responsibility to educate you about autistic culture, don't fucking dare bringing my 'tone' into it.
In fact, just leave tone out of it altogether. Listen for content, not warm fuzzies.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
'Overcoming' Is Not a Moral Obligation
When you are disabled, there are a couple things that are expected:
a) people will say you can't do something
b) people will push you to do that thing anyway
And if people can and want to do the things they "can't" do, good for them. I support people's rights to push their perceived limits.
What I don't support is pressure to push any and every limit intrinsically or extrinsically imposed. Given everything else that we do (like having to fight for our right to be seen as human), developing a knee jerk reaction of "watch me!" when someone says that we can't do something is just asking for long term burn out.
Sometimes they're wrong, and we can do that. Sometimes we just can't, and that's ok. Sometimes we kind of can, but the energy trade off just isn't worth it.
Society demands that we keep overcoming, overcoming, overcoming. But we don't have to. Nowhere is it written that to be a really real human you have to brute force your way through your limits. Nowhere is it written that not doing so makes you less worthy. For most people, constantly refusing to acknowledge that you have limits is seen as a problem. We all have limits & we are supposed to acknowledge them, know where they are, work within them.
But when you have a disability, it's like everyone expects you to push past your limits all the time. They want to be inspired, or they want to not have to deal with the fact that a disability means "there are things I cannot and will never be able to do", even as they expect me to know there are things I can do that they will never be able to.
So we are pushed to keep 'overcoming', and if we can't we are failures and lazy. But if we can, we aren't really disabled. It's a no win either way. Our choices are be burned out or be looked down on even more, be told we aren't disabled because we can do xyz or because we can't.
Feh. That is all.
a) people will say you can't do something
b) people will push you to do that thing anyway
And if people can and want to do the things they "can't" do, good for them. I support people's rights to push their perceived limits.
What I don't support is pressure to push any and every limit intrinsically or extrinsically imposed. Given everything else that we do (like having to fight for our right to be seen as human), developing a knee jerk reaction of "watch me!" when someone says that we can't do something is just asking for long term burn out.
Sometimes they're wrong, and we can do that. Sometimes we just can't, and that's ok. Sometimes we kind of can, but the energy trade off just isn't worth it.
Society demands that we keep overcoming, overcoming, overcoming. But we don't have to. Nowhere is it written that to be a really real human you have to brute force your way through your limits. Nowhere is it written that not doing so makes you less worthy. For most people, constantly refusing to acknowledge that you have limits is seen as a problem. We all have limits & we are supposed to acknowledge them, know where they are, work within them.
But when you have a disability, it's like everyone expects you to push past your limits all the time. They want to be inspired, or they want to not have to deal with the fact that a disability means "there are things I cannot and will never be able to do", even as they expect me to know there are things I can do that they will never be able to.
So we are pushed to keep 'overcoming', and if we can't we are failures and lazy. But if we can, we aren't really disabled. It's a no win either way. Our choices are be burned out or be looked down on even more, be told we aren't disabled because we can do xyz or because we can't.
Feh. That is all.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
"Wouldn't your life be easier if you didn't identify as autistic?"
I've heard that question a lot lately. Well, enough to justify thinking & writing about it. It sounds like a simple question, but when you think about it, there's a lot of complicated nuance involved.
Yes, my life would be easier if I didn't identify as autistic. No, my life would not be easier if I didn't identify as autistic.
People have a great deal of prejudice about autism & other developmental disabilities. I've been bullied out of activities and classes because I am autistic; I've been discouraged from even trying others. People and professionals who are 'familiar' with autism but unfamiliar with me assume that I am less capable of many things than I am-usually in a patronizing & insulting way. It is often assumed that I cannot be good at some of my hobbies and simultaneously assumed that I have some sort of magic autistic savant skill. That part of being autistic really sucks-having to prove my humanity & my individuality over and over and over and over again is exhausting.
The thing is, I don't really pass. I shouldn't have to, either, but even if I wanted to, I just don't. There are things about who I am that scream DIFFERENT. People probably don't peg me as autistic right away-they aren't used to thinking of autistic and adult in the same sentence-but they know damn well I am not of their tribe. Abberation is a crime whether there's a name for it or not.
Distancing myself from the term 'autism' doesn't mitigate the problems (or strengths) that got me the label in the first place. I am going to be labeled in some way whether I let my neurodiversity freak flag fly or hide it in the back of my junk drawer. Being oversensitive, undersensitive, unaware, overaware, strange, belligerent, overly predictable, unpredictable-all of these things are unsafe to be, regardless of diagnosis or lack thereof.
The fact of the matter is, I am autistic. If I didn't identify as such, I would be doing myself (and I like to think the autistic community as well) a huge disservice. It's who I am, easy or not. Owning who I am is a big part of getting other people to accept that I and people like me are really real human beings rather than damaged goods. If it's something that is so bad that I cannot acknowledge that it's part of me, why should I expect people to treat me and mine as equal? The short term convenience of possibly almost passing just isn't worth the long term consequences to me and my autistic peers.
Call it what you will-my brain is autistic and my experience is autistic. It isn't the easiest identity or neurology to live with, but it is mine.
I think the answer just came out to "no, it wouldn't be easier. It'd just be hard in different ways".
Yes, my life would be easier if I didn't identify as autistic. No, my life would not be easier if I didn't identify as autistic.
People have a great deal of prejudice about autism & other developmental disabilities. I've been bullied out of activities and classes because I am autistic; I've been discouraged from even trying others. People and professionals who are 'familiar' with autism but unfamiliar with me assume that I am less capable of many things than I am-usually in a patronizing & insulting way. It is often assumed that I cannot be good at some of my hobbies and simultaneously assumed that I have some sort of magic autistic savant skill. That part of being autistic really sucks-having to prove my humanity & my individuality over and over and over and over again is exhausting.
The thing is, I don't really pass. I shouldn't have to, either, but even if I wanted to, I just don't. There are things about who I am that scream DIFFERENT. People probably don't peg me as autistic right away-they aren't used to thinking of autistic and adult in the same sentence-but they know damn well I am not of their tribe. Abberation is a crime whether there's a name for it or not.
Distancing myself from the term 'autism' doesn't mitigate the problems (or strengths) that got me the label in the first place. I am going to be labeled in some way whether I let my neurodiversity freak flag fly or hide it in the back of my junk drawer. Being oversensitive, undersensitive, unaware, overaware, strange, belligerent, overly predictable, unpredictable-all of these things are unsafe to be, regardless of diagnosis or lack thereof.
The fact of the matter is, I am autistic. If I didn't identify as such, I would be doing myself (and I like to think the autistic community as well) a huge disservice. It's who I am, easy or not. Owning who I am is a big part of getting other people to accept that I and people like me are really real human beings rather than damaged goods. If it's something that is so bad that I cannot acknowledge that it's part of me, why should I expect people to treat me and mine as equal? The short term convenience of possibly almost passing just isn't worth the long term consequences to me and my autistic peers.
Call it what you will-my brain is autistic and my experience is autistic. It isn't the easiest identity or neurology to live with, but it is mine.
I think the answer just came out to "no, it wouldn't be easier. It'd just be hard in different ways".
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Parents of autistic kids are bullies.
Not all of them, obviously. But a disturbing percentage.
They say something I disagree with? Waaaaah, I'm not empathizing with the difficulty they have as a parent. Don't I know how horrible it is to parent a kid "who happens to be diagnosed with" autism?
Oh, Neurodivergent K, you say your parents were abusive? Don't you know how much they suffered? They probably just couldn't cope! What do you mean that is a thoroughly offensive and disgusting thing to say? Don't you have any empathy for your parents? I'm sure they didn't wake up and say "so how do I traumatize my kid today?". God, you autistics just don't understand us poor brave struggling parent-warriors.
You disagree with this and find it repugnant? Why are you so angry??!?!? Life hands you lemons, make lemonade! (fuck that, incidentally. Life hands you lemons, chuck them back as hard as you can. When they bounce off, set them on fire and do it again.) Anger doesn't accomplish anything! OMG INFIGHTING! You say you're an adult so act like one! Stop having a tantrum!
Yeah, people actually talk to me this way. Parents of autistic kids-often the same ones who presume to ask me about my bowel movements and menstruation-cannot handle an autistic person disagreeing with them.
And that's when they bully. They come in a herd. They condescend. They misread what you say. They assume emotions that I am not necessarily feeling. They assume that anger is a "bad" emotion, one undeserved. They decide that doing exactly what they do is 'tantrumming', because of course autistic people have no right to expect to be treated as adults. It's all that schoolyard crap, again and again.
And they wonder why I worry for their children. How the hell are they going to advocate for their children when they are bullying someone who has the same neurotype as their kids?!?
I hope to hell that no one treats their kids the way they treat me. It isn't the children's fault their parents are grade-A asswipes. But still, grade-A asswipes.
If you are an autistic person, you know exactly what I am talking about. If you are a parent who thinks that talking to autistic people like that is acceptable, thinks that your view of autism matters more than what actual autistic people think, you just may be a grade-A asswipe. Cut that shit out.
They say something I disagree with? Waaaaah, I'm not empathizing with the difficulty they have as a parent. Don't I know how horrible it is to parent a kid "who happens to be diagnosed with" autism?
Oh, Neurodivergent K, you say your parents were abusive? Don't you know how much they suffered? They probably just couldn't cope! What do you mean that is a thoroughly offensive and disgusting thing to say? Don't you have any empathy for your parents? I'm sure they didn't wake up and say "so how do I traumatize my kid today?". God, you autistics just don't understand us poor brave struggling parent-warriors.
You disagree with this and find it repugnant? Why are you so angry??!?!? Life hands you lemons, make lemonade! (fuck that, incidentally. Life hands you lemons, chuck them back as hard as you can. When they bounce off, set them on fire and do it again.) Anger doesn't accomplish anything! OMG INFIGHTING! You say you're an adult so act like one! Stop having a tantrum!
Yeah, people actually talk to me this way. Parents of autistic kids-often the same ones who presume to ask me about my bowel movements and menstruation-cannot handle an autistic person disagreeing with them.
And that's when they bully. They come in a herd. They condescend. They misread what you say. They assume emotions that I am not necessarily feeling. They assume that anger is a "bad" emotion, one undeserved. They decide that doing exactly what they do is 'tantrumming', because of course autistic people have no right to expect to be treated as adults. It's all that schoolyard crap, again and again.
And they wonder why I worry for their children. How the hell are they going to advocate for their children when they are bullying someone who has the same neurotype as their kids?!?
I hope to hell that no one treats their kids the way they treat me. It isn't the children's fault their parents are grade-A asswipes. But still, grade-A asswipes.
If you are an autistic person, you know exactly what I am talking about. If you are a parent who thinks that talking to autistic people like that is acceptable, thinks that your view of autism matters more than what actual autistic people think, you just may be a grade-A asswipe. Cut that shit out.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
BADD 2011. The fights we fight
I'm in the middle of 2 battles right now. 2 battles that should not need fighting.
One, I am a one woman anti strobe light league. People have them on the fronts of their bikes, and have told me that they are willing to take that risk because epileptic people cannot drive. It's not their call. Fighting to get flash photography banned at a place I go frequently-the red eye reducer is a strobe light just so you know-has taken the better part of a year and the start of a petition to DOJ. It also took me having 2 severe seizure clusters at the venue because of flash photography and a so called professional photographer aggressively strobing in my face and nearly hitting a friend of mine. Pictures are not more important than my health.
Then there's the restaurant with a strobe light outside, who told me that they aren't the only ones in town with a light and to get a life instead of telling them that they are hurting people. And there are the parking garages with strobe lights. There are the red lights and the school busses, all strobing. Because according to the real people out there, I DON'T MATTER.
I have been told that if strobe lights are dangerous to me I should stay in my house. They are fucking everywhere. NO. It is my world too.
Then there's a fight for access at school. I'm socially different, whoopie shit, and a teacher cannot handle that. It will eventually be covered in full here, but currently there are a lot of legal things going on and I don't think they go on the internet right now.
But this guy heard the word autism and suggested a yoga class and that I cannot evaluate risk because I am autistic. He has alternatingly ignored me and harrassed me for the whole term, because I am autistic. He has coerced the staff at the facility we use into harrassing me, because I am autistic.
He has bullied me via himself, the dean of the school, and disability services, because I am autistic. He is trying to bully me out of his class because I am autistic. Not because I am incapable, but because I am autistic.
The people who are supposed to be my advocates, Disability Services, are giving what he says more weight, because I am autistic. The dean is listening to him and talking down to me, because I am autistic. They are telling me again that who I am is enough reason to discriminate against me even though they have a policy against that. They are doing this, too, because I am autistic.
They will probably get away with it, because I am autistic.
They will fight for each other, but no one fights for us. I am tired of fighting, but I keep doing it because it's fight or die, and I am not dead yet.
Monday, April 11, 2011
"What Would Meeting You Halfway Be?"
My friend asked me this after class with an "aware" teacher. And I was flabbergasted.
I have no answer to that question. I don't even have the shape of an answer, much less words, a description.
Meeting us halfway just isn't done. No one considers it as an option. It's a tidbit of ableism that is so entrenched that I never considered it; autistics do all the work is just how it is. We give 95%, everyone else complains about the 3% they grudgingly give & then they demand that we meet them halfway-because 97% is the new half.
It never occurred to me that they are fully capable of giving more. I don't know why, just that they don't. A communication problem must have at least 2 sides, yet "I have a communication disorder, so this is my problem" is the way it is. It's how it has always been. It's how things will continue to be for the forseeable future.
I still don't have an answer to my friend's query. I guess part of meeting me halfway would be ditching preconcieved notions that I can (or cannot) do something based on my skill-or lack thereof-in another area. Part is not assuming or using communication between the lines. Take stims as they are. Take me as I am-everything I do has a reason, but fretting about that odd thing I do isn't meeting me halfway; it is othering. Don't other me.
But really, I do not have an answer. I could not tell anyone how to meet me truly in the middle. I don't know what it feels like. If it's like my social experiences at conferences, it's both a freeing level of acceptance and something the NT majority will never achieve in my lifetime. It's not something they can or will do.
I don't know where halfway is, and I quite likely never will. There, I guess, is the answer.
I have no answer to that question. I don't even have the shape of an answer, much less words, a description.
Meeting us halfway just isn't done. No one considers it as an option. It's a tidbit of ableism that is so entrenched that I never considered it; autistics do all the work is just how it is. We give 95%, everyone else complains about the 3% they grudgingly give & then they demand that we meet them halfway-because 97% is the new half.
It never occurred to me that they are fully capable of giving more. I don't know why, just that they don't. A communication problem must have at least 2 sides, yet "I have a communication disorder, so this is my problem" is the way it is. It's how it has always been. It's how things will continue to be for the forseeable future.
I still don't have an answer to my friend's query. I guess part of meeting me halfway would be ditching preconcieved notions that I can (or cannot) do something based on my skill-or lack thereof-in another area. Part is not assuming or using communication between the lines. Take stims as they are. Take me as I am-everything I do has a reason, but fretting about that odd thing I do isn't meeting me halfway; it is othering. Don't other me.
But really, I do not have an answer. I could not tell anyone how to meet me truly in the middle. I don't know what it feels like. If it's like my social experiences at conferences, it's both a freeing level of acceptance and something the NT majority will never achieve in my lifetime. It's not something they can or will do.
I don't know where halfway is, and I quite likely never will. There, I guess, is the answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)